Widows Sons

The WS discussion is showing how the freedoms we all take for take for granted in life doesn't works the same in the lodge. It looks to me that by being a MM in Texas I have given up my right to dress like and ride with friends and other MM of states where it is approved. Did southern state masonry put out an edict you could not sit in a lodge with union soldiers when the civil war started because they were waring blue and not gray? It is not the that edict that the GLoT put out in 2007 said Texas Freemasons could not belong to the WS but that it said could not associate with or sit in lodge with them even though the book of regular lodges says we could. It needs to be rewritten to just say the WS are not an appendant body in Texas.

I don't know about that. I am not a member of a Texas Lodge, but based on the text of this 2011 Edict I do not believe it says that:
January 6, 2011

To the Masons of Texas:

Grand Master’s Edict

I have been advised that some Texas Masons presently belong to an organization operating under the name of “Widows Sons Masonic Motorcycle Riders Association”. At the 2007 Grand Annual Communication this organization was denied recognition as an organization to which Texas Masons could belong.

Texas Masons are not permitted to belong to, or be identified with, the organization known as “Widows Sons Masonic Motorcycle Riders Association” unless and until such organization is recognized by the Grand Lodge of Texas, and to do so constitutes a Masonic Disciplinary Violation. This Edict is effective immediately. Acts contrary to this edict will result in Masonic Disciplinary action against the violator.

This edict is issued to enforce the 2007 decision of the Grand Lodge of Texas concerning the “Widows Sons Masonic Motorcycle Riders Association”.

Correct. We give up certain rights when we freely choose to take the Ob

Click to expand...

Those rights we give up are enumerated in the Ob. I don't see any place where we have to agree with a edict but just follow it till it is repealed. If I was a MM of a states that a you can be a WS but now living in Texas and sitting in lodge in a Texas. Should all lodges from a state that allows the WS no be counted as a regular lodges?

Those rights we give up are enumerated in the Ob. I don't see any place where we have to agree with a edict but just follow it till it is repealed. If I was a MM of a states that a you can be a WS but now living in Texas and sitting in lodge in a Texas. Should all lodges from a state that allows the WS no be counted as a regular lodges?

Click to expand...

Oh, quite right, but agreeing with edicts wasn't the issue.

I know of no reason GLs which allow Widows [sic] Sons would not be recognized as regular, as they meet the CGMNA standards. Why do you ask?

I know of no reason GLs which allow Widows [sic] Sons would not be recognized as regular, as they meet the CGMNA standards. Why do you ask?

Click to expand...

Last night at my lodges stated meeting one of my brothers and I was talking about the this and Waco while I was cooking and had a fit about a back patch on a vest that showed up on TV for the peaceful rally June 7th. It was not a WS patch the guy had a top rocker that said Freemason, a center patch that had the square and compasses and on the bottom rocker the word brotherhood. My brother said these words "this was decided in 2007 that anyone doing that would be expelled from the masons". The guy on TV was a rider going to the peaceful protest to show support for the Texas Conferdation of Clubs meeting that happened in Waco and has been happening every two months for over 20 years. The 2 clubs out of 20 clubs that were in Waco that had a problem are painting all people wareing patches in a bad light. This is why I ask should that guy ware his pride of the fraternity on his vest? ring? The people that voted on the WS at the GLoT in 2007 did not see anything but a biker Gang and not brothers that ride. Also anyone that thinks what happened in Waco was just bad outlaw biker gangs they need to think of ill informed police being overly zealous needs to look at the evedince before judging.

The problem I have with the patch u just described is that is a 3 piece rocker patch...that 1%er territory. If the rockers had been bars(straight instead of curved) hed be fine. But if a 1% OMC saw him riding through their turf hed have some problems on his hands

No, he should not have been displaying overtly Masonic emblems at that or any other protest; I don't care if it's a protest for clean air and education. If a Mason wants to attend a protest, that is certainly his right. He does not have the right to bring the craft into disrepute. When someone just catches a two-second glimpse of that guy on the news, they don't see him as an individual; they see the word "Freemason" emblazoned across his back while in the middle of a mob.

Again, from the Past Master's charge we are told it is our duty go convince people of the goodness of Freemasonry through "amiable, discreet, and virtuous" behavior.

The problem I have with the patch u just described is that is a 3 piece rocker patch...that 1%er territory. If the rockers had been bars(straight instead of curved) hed be fine. But if a 1% OMC saw him riding through their turf hed have some problems on his hands

Click to expand...

No he has no problem as long as he has no territory ownership on the bottom rocker. If you had ever been to the CoC meeting you would know that.

No, he should not have been displaying overtly Masonic emblems at that or any other protest; I don't care if it's a protest for clean air and education. If a Mason wants to attend a protest, that is certainly his right. He does not have the right to bring the craft into disrepute. When someone just catches a two-second glimpse of that guy on the news, they don't see him as an individual; they see the word "Freemason" emblazoned across his back while in the middle of a mob.

Again, from the Past Master's charge we are told it is our duty go convince people of the goodness of Freemasonry through "amiable, discreet, and virtuous" behavior.

Click to expand...

So when I was a volunteer at a Bikes and Badges Ride I should have not wore my Lodge shirt even though the lodge was supporting that Mob of a cancer ride. Also did you see that it was "Bikes and Badges". Also if you look back in this post you will see my vest I ware for protection has Masonic symbols on it. I am a Mason when I am doing electric market design and regulatory work so I am also a Mason when I am supporting the constitution by protesting the Waco's police violating the 1st , 2nd, 4th, 5th and 8th amendment of at least 100 of the 170 people arrested. well also maybe the 13th.

I will give you credit for being able to know what the general public sees when it pops up on the news "Groups Aid Cancer Research" and "Bikers Protest Police" because you know the news media would neeeeeever only tell part of a story.

If I were to ever attend some sort of protest (or when I'm on my Harley), I would certainly not wear anything Masonic. I also wouldn't wear any logos from the high school where I teach and coach. I don't want to give anyone a chance to have a negative impression of those institutions. I am protecting their good names. If someone were to have a negative impression of something I did, then I want that impression to be of me, not Masonry or my school. There is a reason the military tells you that if you are at some questionable event, you'd better not be in uniform.

And for the record, I don't wear Masonic shirts, etc. to work. Most of my students know I am a Mason; most of everyone I work with knows I am a Mason. If they ask me, I am more than happy to discuss it, and more than once I have cleared up misinformation. Because so many people are misinformed and have the wrong impression, I chose not to advertise it by wearing anything with a S&C on it.

But they did not present themselves as representing Freemasonry. I can say with 100 percent certainty that none of the participants in those events did not have a back patch, nor were they broadcast on the 6 o'clock news.

There has been evidence shown that they did wear coordinating outfits/colors as a show of solidarity. During the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, there were men in several of the villages who wore white hoods with red tassels. Those at the Boston Tea Party were also similarly dressed, by some accounts as Indians or wearing face paint.

The Widow's Sons above are not "presenting themselves as representing Freemasonry." You are the one doing that.

I'm glad that here in Ohio, the Widow's Sons are embraced. They were recently in a parade during Home Day, an all-day event put on each year by the Ohio Masonic Home. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would attach so much importance to the way one group of Masons chooses to dress, while at the same time being a part of the Royal Order of Peacocks, where dressing up in the most absurd fashion is supposedly good for the Craft.

But they did not present themselves as representing Freemasonry. I can say with 100 percent certainty that none of the participants in those events did not have a back patch, nor were they broadcast on the 6 o'clock news.

Masonic involvement in the Peasant's Revolt in England is the opinion of one man. While the book Born in Blood is an entertaining read, the evidence to support his suppositions is scanty at best.

While there were surely Masons involved in the Boston Tea Party, there is absolutely no evidence that it was a Masonic activity. Some of the Sons of Liberty were surely Masons, but it's likely that some were not. Again, it's a supposition.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. There is no evidence that he was a Freemason, and no legitimate Masonic historian that I'm familiar with makes a claim that he was. Were there Masonic ideals in the Declaration? Sure. Because those were popular ideals among enlightenment thinkers.

The Widow's Sons above are not "presenting themselves as representing Freemasonry." You are the one doing that.

I'm glad that here in Ohio, the Widow's Sons are embraced. They were recently in a parade during Home Day, an all-day event put on each year by the Ohio Masonic Home. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would attach so much importance to the way one group of Masons chooses to dress, while at the same time being a part of the Royal Order of Peacocks, where dressing up in the most absurd fashion is supposedly good for the Craft.

Click to expand...

It would be my expectation that a disciplinary panel would find that if you wear the Masonic emblem, you are, to an extent, representing the fraternity. Many GL codes have provisions regarding bringing the fraternity into disrepute. I can easily see participating as a Mason in a protest as a basis for for alleging a violation of that provision. Certainly, I would entertain that argument.

As to the nature of the dress, please see the prior discussion of the widow patch with her in what I would describe as a lascivious pose. That was one reason the organization was not approved in Utah.

About My Freemasonry

We are an online eMasonry community featuring Masonic Education and one of the largest Discussion Forums for Freemasons. As the world's oldest and largest fraternal organization, Freemasonry today is built on Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth. Through fellowship, charity, education and leadership, Freemasons are making their lives - and their communities - stronger by the day.